[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Mon Aug 23 09:25:19 AKDT 2010
Just wondering: When was the last time an idea from the U.S.A. was
adopted by the FAI.
Ron
On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
> Tony,
>
> This issue has come up time and time again... they just aren't
> interested in changing the way it is currently done, nor in
> increasing the weight.
>
> -Derek
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tony <tony at radiosouthrc.com> wrote:
> Derek:
> My take on Mike’s point was that they should weigh models without
> the batteries for the motor. I don’t think he was asking about
> increasing the weight. I believe there are other FAI events where
> the batteries are removed when the models are weighed, so this is
> not a new concept to them.
>
>
> Tony Stillman, President
>
> Radio South, Inc.
>
> 139 Altama Connector, Box 322
>
> Brunswick, GA 31525
>
> 1-800-962-7802
>
> www.radiosouthrc.com
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:37 PM
>
>
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>
>
> Mike,
>
>
> I've talked at length about the weight issue with the other F3A
> representatives and there wasn't much support at all for increasing
> the weight limits.
>
>
> -Derek
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Dr Mike <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> I think all of that is too complicated. As you are all aware, it
> is really FAI rules that is the problem. I recommend we urge our
> FAI rep to change the rule to weigh airplanes without batteries.
> This argument has been presented before, but I think it needs to be
> pressed. Batteries are just fuel. A fuel weight limit could be
> imposed. I fly IC and loaded with fuel it is 12 lbs 4oz at least.
> All of this is old, old news, but it should be pressed, I believe.
>
> Mike
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Hoard
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:35 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>
>
> Perhaps another compromise would be to raise the weight limit to
> 11.5 or 12 lbs., then have a weight penalty that starts at 11lbs
> and increases hyperbolically up to the max weight.
>
> It could start at 2% at 11lb 1oz., 5% at 11 lb., 2oz., 7% at
> 11lb. 3oz., on up to 40% score reduction at 12 lbs.
>
> This rule wouldn't affect anyone at local contests nor guys who
> aren't in the hunt for hardware at the Nats. The top guys at the
> Nats wouldn't have to worry about being DQ'd for weight HOWEVER if
> you want to stay in the top you better have a light airplane. . .
> or be able to fly 40% better than everyone else . .
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
>
> Yep…time will tell. This topic has been a debate for many
> years….and the “cushion” is the best idea/compromise I have seen
> since the weight became a limiting factor.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Tim Taylor
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 12:29 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>
>
> Dave,
>
>
> At this point we'll agree to disagree. The "cushion rule" is a good
> thing and might just achieve what I want while maintaining the
> spirit of the rules that you want.
>
>
> Time will tell.
>
>
> Lively discussion and debate brings out points from all sides the
> other might not have thought of.
>
>
> I enjoy it and often learn from it.
>
>
> Tim
>
> --- On Sun, 8/22/10, davel322 at comcast.net <davel322 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: davel322 at comcast.net <davel322 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 12:07 PM
>
> Tim,
>
>
> I'm well aware of where the rules changes came from (FAI), and how
> they were followed by AMA, and it changes nothing with respect to
> my original point. When the limits have increased, increased costs
> have followed without exception.
>
>
> Pattern planes are quiet because we have a noise rule...even though
> it is not enforced locally.
>
>
> Pattern planes are limited in cost because we have limits...and the
> most competitive are the most costly - that will never change.
> Increase the limits, and the costs for the most competitive setups
> will increase - it always has, and it always will.
>
>
> The current proposal to allow a "cushion" to the weight limit in
> the lower classes is I think a good idea. For the FAI based
> designs (the vast majority), the lightest and most expensive
> equipment will not have to be used. For the AMA based designs
> (very few in number), planes will still be designed to meet 11 lbs
> and therefore an increase in size/weight/expense is very unlikely
> to happen.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dave L
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Taylor" <timsautopro at yahoo.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:25:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>
> Dave,
>
>
> One minor detail that throws a wrench into the history and today.
>
>
> All 4 of those changes that made huge changes in our sport were
> from the top down.
>
>
> FAI made those changes and we have what we have today.
>
>
> The change we're talking about only effects the US in AMA classes,
> not FAI.
>
>
> There are no pattern kits currently being designed and built in
> mass in the USA. Even if they were they'd likely be designed by
> guys in FAI. They will NOT design an airplane that cannot compete
> at the FAI level. It just wont happen.
>
>
> What harm can it do if I build a Focus2 in Elect and show up 1/2
> pound over weight?
>
>
> None.
>
>
> What harm will it do if an Advance flier shows up with a 2 year old
> airplane bought from an FAI pilot and he has heavier batteries or
> repairs have now made the airplane over weight?
>
>
> None.
>
>
> Will you have a guy show up with a 50cc 2x2 3d monster from time
> to time?
>
>
> Yes,
>
>
> does it matter?
>
>
> No.
>
>
> He won't pass the noise test anyway. :)
>
> Can any CD here honestly tell me that they'll turn a pilot down at
> a contest (Besides the nats) because he's 3 oz over weight?
>
>
> I doubt it,
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 8/20/10, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Friday, August 20, 2010, 5:54 PM
>
> Just noticed this didn’t make it to the list the first time……was
> too big with all the RE:RE:RE:RE (trimmed now). And…I’m off to a
> contest! J
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> From: Dave [mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:17 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
>
> This whole discussion is one where history really does speak volumes –
>
>
> In short, there has always been a limiting factor (whether size,
> weight, power, noise). That limit has always been pushed by the
> top level competitors, and the top level stuff is always the most
> expensive, and it offers a competitive advantage over cheaper
> setups. And the masses (certainly 90+% anyway) follow the guys at
> the top.
>
>
> In short, everytime a limiting factor has been increased (for
> whatever reasons), the size, cost, expense, etc has increased.
> Cheaper options are available now, and they are not as
> competitive. Change the rules, and cheaper options will still be
> available and still not be as competitive as the new standard that
> will be achieved by the top level competitors that push the new
> limits. In the last 20 or so years, I’ve seen this cycle about 4
> times. There is no magical rule or formula that will change this
> for open competition…the cycle will repeat every time a limit is
> raised.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:55 AM
> To: NSRCA List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>
>
>
> I should have checked my building noes first - it was actually 10
> lbs 4 oz. But I'm not a professional builder either. Point is, it
> can be done within the existing rules. You just have to get past
> the idea that it can't be done.
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Keith Hoard
> Collierville, TN
> khoard at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list